The indictment of first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍) and four top presidential aides for forgery and corruption on Nov. 3 has placed many of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) allies and supporters as well as the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in a quandary as whether to continue supporting Chen's presidency or join the opposition in demanding Chen's resignation.
If the crimes of which Wu and her alleged accomplices are accused had nothing to do with Chen, the situation would have been much easier. However, according to the indictment letter, Chen appears to have been involved.
Under the circumstances, all those who continue to say that Chen should be allowed to stay in his job face an uphill battle. In light of the upcoming elections -- the mayoral elections and the legislative elections in a little more than a year -- the pressure on these people cannot be underestimated.
Some people are depicting the current situation as the biggest crisis of the DPP in its twenty or so years of history. The DPP rose to power with platforms and campaign slogans that focused on anti-corruption and clean politics -- a stark contrast to the old Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). While the KMT disappointed those who had hoped it would learn and grow from its presidential defeats -- first in 2000 and then in 2004 -- the DPP has been disappointing as a ruling party as well.
First, the DPP's performance in ruling the country has been lukewarm. In that regard, some people use the DPP's inexperience to explain this situation and argue that the party deserves some understanding.
Second is the swaggering cross-strait policy of the DPP. It is somewhat difficult to tell whether the party in fact has a cross-strait policy, and if it does what it actually consists of. Sometimes it seems to lean so much toward pro-independence while at others it tips toward the other end of the spectrum. This lack of consistency leaves many people confused.
Had the DPP been able, despite its other shortcomings, to maintain an image of anti-corruption, it would at least have left an honorable legacy from its eight years in power.
Although the DPP officially announced last week that it supports the president's decision to step down immediately if the first lady is found guilty, different perspectives are being voiced from within the party. This is especially true with the younger generations within the DPP, who are the future of the party and who fully understand the political implications if the DPP remains incapable of drawing a line between itself and the first family.
For those who wonder why the DPP remains hesitant to take any drastic stance in order to put some distance between itself and the Chen family, the answer is that it may just be too late. Moreover, as the first person elected as president from the DPP and the pro-independence camp, a lot of traditional DPP and pro-independence supporters feel a special sense of attachment to Chen. If the DPP takes any drastic measures to distance itself from him, it may incur the wrath of many of its traditional supporters.
It is a most difficult decision for the DPP to make, indeed.
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS